No WWII: Does Britain retain its naval supremacy?

Vladimir

Banned
At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy and British merchant fleet were still the largest in the world. The United States Navy had restarted battleship production in 1937, but the Royal Navy was still a bit bigger. However, once the United States had been mobilized into the war, its industrial capacity created such an enormous fleet that by 1943, it was larger than the combined fleets of all other combatant nations. Along with its substantial fleet of cruisers, destroyers, corvettes and submarines, it had 15 battleships and battlecruisers and 7 aircraft carriers. However, even after the war, the British still had the world's largest merchant fleet.

However, what if the war hadn't happened? The United States was already building battleships, but with the depression probably still ongoing (at least to some degree), the effort to build up the US Navy wouldn't have been as big, especially as it would not have faced the very real threat of defeat in the Pacific. Britain was also affected by the depression, and both sides were limited by the Washington Naval Treaty, but the Royal Navy still had a head start.

Ultimately, I believe that with a concerted effort, the US could easily have overtaken Britain as the dominant force on the world's seas, as it is simply more economically powerful. I guess it all depends on how the depression plays out and on politicians judging whether the US really needs to overtake the British. I would bet that the US would jump at the first opportunity. Throughout the 19th century, the United States was terrified that the British, using their overwhelming control of the North Atlantic, would shut off its access to the sea and strangle it. Its obsession with foreign naval power was probably the real cause of the Spanish-American War (to drive the Spanish Navy away from the Carribbean) and WWIIs "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" (where the British got old US destroyers for British bases in the Western Hemisphere). The US would not pass up an opportunity to overtake Britannia and rule the waves, though whether the Depression would allow that is another story.
 
For the US

No WWII implies no Naval Expansion Act/2 Ocean Navy Bill, and the second (1936) London Naval treaty remains in effect for the US and UK. The Naval Expansion Act 1940 funded the mass of Essex carriers, Fletcher destroyers , Baltimore cruisers and the the crucial fleet train of tankers etc. that established US naval supremacy. In the UK, the RAF and Army would prsumably be much worse off vis-a-vis the RN without WWII. As long as the UK retains India and possesses the largest single merchant fleet, and also a slim but important comparative advantage in shipbuilding (more shipyards,cheaper ships of all types) the RN will remain broadly comparable to the USN. Strategic parity was the objective of the Washington Treaty (and successors) after all.
 
The reasons why there was no World War II would have been crucial. If Germany had chosen to rearm at a rational, sustainable pace under somebody like Papen, I suspect that Britain would have maintained parity for decades.

Historically, in the lead-up to World War II the Brits spent huge amounts of money on aircraft (especially the big bomber fleet). Without a continental threat that money would have probably gone to the navy, especially if Japan broke out of the Washington Naval Treaty as they did historically.

It would be interesting to see how the Brits (and the US) would react to the Japanese super-battleships when they found out about them in a peacetime situation. Presumably both powers would respond in some way. I've seen several people claim that the US Iowa class could handle the Japanese monsters, but even if that is true the US would probably try to build a more directly competitive class like the Montana, and the Brits presumably would too.
 
In the 1930s Britain only had naval supremacy in the European theater. It had already accepted parity with the United States, informally in the 1910s and formally in 1922. Without WWII its is likely that the main battleline will continue to shrink. The Revenge class would be sold off and then the Queen Elizabeths. The Hood and other battlecruisers would be rebuilt along with the Nelson and Rodney.

It is also likely that the RN would start recycling its now surplus abundance of 15in guns into new ships similar to the Vanguard. These ships may form the bulk of a Far East force. Battleships will take second place to carriers and cruisers.
 
I think the big question is how long it takes Japan to cotton on to radar, they didn't have it early in the war, and it ended up costing them.
 
But radar technology grew so much due to WWII. If there is no war, doesn't that mean radar goes back to the stone age?
 
The first parts of the Chain Home system were up and running by 1936 (finance had been granted in December of '35), and both the USN and RN were going hell for leather to get radar onto ships. the Japanese weren't actually that far behind technologically, but it took a long time to commit the Navy heads.
 
As others have said, Britain formally accepted parity with the US in the 1922 Washington Treaty. But that said their carrier replacement plans were quite slow; before rearmament they were looking at replacing 6 carriers by 1955, that`s close to 20 years. So I think in reality without WW2 they`d get overtaken by the USN sooner rather than later.
 
economics

You havn't said what your POD is,if there is a WW1 and a 1930's depression presumably without the stimulus of reactions to rising dictatorships [both east and west] this depression will at the very least continue for a longer time.
If this is the case where is the money to maintain the status qou coming from? There will be no need for ''Guns before butter attitude'' and any spare money in the U.K at least will go on social services prompted by a rising Labour party.
This means a smaller, less modern, under resourced armed forces [including the Navy], Remember there is now no threat, potential or actual to contend against.
The first world war was disasterous for the U.K not least on the economic front. Modern military strength is a function of economic strength ,and as the USA was not affected adversly economicly by WW1 and was in any case a much bigger economy there is I think no way to maintain for the U.K worldwide naval supremancy
I love the idea of keeping the R.N going though, it was a great force for peace.
 

Devvy

Donor
I suppose a fair amount of the question depends on the status of the Empire as well. Do you count the Dominion forces as part of British Navy, as they're effectively in a close alliance?

Depending on how the POD plays out, you might have a remaining military alliance between Aus/NZ/Can/UK at the least which will do wonders for global power projection. Other smaller UK colonies may remain British; Hong Kong, Singapore etc etc
 
The US had the sheer industrial and economic capacity to completely outproduce the UK since at least the start of the twentieth century. This was exactly what happened during WW2 and the British understood as much which is why they were willing to agree to the Washington and London naval treaties. Unlike with Imperial Germany they realized that if they got into a naval arms race with the US they were going to lose.

It really isn't a question of ability but will. For the UK the fleet was not only vital for defense and maintaining the empire it was a source of national pride. For isolationist America the US Navy was important, but just as with the other services was underfunded and not fully modernized until the gearing up for war began.

Unless the US makes a concerted effort (which is unlikely so long as they do not feel menaced) the British would remain dominant... for as long as they could afford it.

How long do they remain in India? How long is the Empire viable? With no second world war to exhaust and bankrupt them the empire might survive for a few more decades.

If the USSR remains relatively isolated (likely if it doesn't conquer eastern Europe and remains just a great power as opposed to one of two super powers) the US would likely remain more or less isolationist limiting their interests to the western hemisphere.
 
Its absolutely not a question of out producing. Its a question of economics. Britain has far more shipyards than it would ever realistically need for making ships, if it had infinite money it could knock them out like anything. It didn't though.

There's no way of saying here. It totally depends how things go. Does America retreat further into isolationism? Does India split neater and with more lasting British ties? Does the rest of the empire drift away or is the new reliality recognised and a more solid commonwealth formed?

One thing I will say is very likely is that labour will continue its rise and some sort of welfare state will be put into practice. British governments will have to start thinking a lot more about spending on British people than foreigners.
 
No, Britain had surrendered the principle of Naval Superiority (Two Power standard etc.) at the Washington Naval Treaty negotiations and had lost the ability to afford it in WW1.
 

Vladimir

Banned
It depends. Is there still the prospect of fighting the Japanese, or is it a 'world at peace' scenario?

Japan might still probably attack Pearl Harbor over the US oil embargo, but since there would have been no treaty with the Axis powers, it would not need to commit to assisting the Germans in their fight against the British. If they were smart, they would leave British colonies alone while going after the United States.
 
Top